Posted on 12/15/2001 10:52:58 AM PST by shuckmaster
A statue of Abraham Lincoln in Carle Park in Urbana, Illinois, was hit with an act of vandalism which, while not particularly damaging to the materials of the sculpture, did nothing for the image of dignity associated with our 16th president.
The vandals painted Lincoln's face white, then daubed the eyes with black paint. Local officials described the effect as looking as if Lincoln was auditioning to join the rock band KISS.
The bronze statue was installed in the park in 1927 and is green in color from the patina bronze acquires when exposed to the elements. It was created by famed sculptor Lorado Taft and depicts Lincoln as he looked as a young circuit-riding lawyer.
The statue has been a frequent target of misguided mischief in the past, according to Urbana Park District Superintendent of Operations Joseph Potts. It is located directly west of Urbana High School as well as being fairly close to the main campus of the University of Illinois.
"We've had people put a Santa hat on it or hang plastic breasts on it," he said. "It's more funny than it is destructive sometimes."
Potts said that the current attack involved only water-based paint, which was easily removed with soap and water. He added that occasional inscriptions of vulgarities with markers are considerably more difficult to remove.
The park district and city officials have had off-and-on discussions for several months over relocating the statue from Carle Park to another site, possibly downtown or to a historic site associated with Lincoln's activities in Champaign-Urbana. School officials have said they favor the move since the statue attracts students and others who gather there to smoke, forcing school janitors to clean up discarded filters on a regular basis.
A committee is being formed to look into ways to improve Carle Park, including possibly better protecting the statue, according to Renee Pollock, a member of the Urbana Park District advisory committee. Park District Executive Director Robin Hall said the neighborhood committee might want to add lighting for the statue, which he said could help deter vandalism.
Courtesy of: Civil War Interactive: The Daily Newspaper of the Civil War www.civilwarinteractive.com
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few [limited] and defined [enumerated or listed]. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous [many] and indefinite [those not listed]. " James Madison, Federalist No. 45
And he would be appalled that you do so.
In his letter to Daniel Webster, dated March 13, 1833, James Madison wrote:
"I return my thanks for the copy of your late very powerful speech in the Senate of the U. S. It crushes "nullification" and must hasten an abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."
Secession does not exist as a matter of right, according to Madison, because it is a breach of the "compact" between the States, whereas secession or "revolution" for cause is recognized without question.
So, yes, Madison -- Mr. Constitution -- recognized that there is an inherent right to revolt (i.e. secede) in the case of intolerable oppression. Given that Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence, which also recognized the "self- evident" right to "alter or abolish" a government which becomes destructive, you have at least two of the Founding Fathers -- and Presidents -- on record in favor of the natural right to conduct a revolution. But revolutions are by definition -outside- the law. Just as the colonists went outside British law, the secessionists went outside US law, and no one is denying their right to do so. And that, as an aside is what Lincoln is talking about in his oft-misquoted 1848 speech regarding natural rights.
Consider also:
"The Constitution is a "compact" ordained by "the People of the United States, and not by the States in their sovereign capactities. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304, 324-325 (1816); and see also Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U.S. 1, 34 (1894), and Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307 (1940) (referring to it as the "federal compact"). Madison referred to it as such in the previously mentioned letter to Daniel Webster. Even secessionist leaders of the late war of rebellion admitted that it was a compact, and argued a "breach of compact" as a ground for secession."
Again, you have finally shrugged off your lethargy to consult the actual record, and again, it simply is not very compelling.
Walt
It -is- a good thing.
Its pretty much infinitely preferable to what happened when the Taliban rallied together to fight a foreign oppressor, don't you agree? In just a few weeks they fractured into pieces, and their power dissolved.
That is what happened to the Soviet Union too, in case you missed it.
A wise man once said:
"Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, an no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you."
-A. Lincoln, 3/4/61
Thank God Lincoln was willing to fight for this country, else wise you might have some terrorist crazy cutting your throat this very minute.
Walt
Bush is well on his way. He is proposing many of the same things except he is fighting terrorism rather than the Confederacy. At least he hasn't thrown the Chief of the Supreme Court or a State legislature in jail YET. If he gets any real resistance, he may still tie Lincoln.
Preservation of the union was Lincolns primary goal in the civil war, 1861-1865. it was"not either to save or to destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
Here is a more complete quote. Funny how the neo-confederates never seem to make a complete quote of this oft-quoted letter.
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be would would NOT save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and not to either save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do that, and if I could save by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forebear, I forebear because I do not think it will help save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe more will help the cause. I shall endeavor to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have herein stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
A. Lincoln 8/22/62
The main thing to keep in mind regarding Lincoln is that his bedrock position was that slavery NOT be allowed to expand into the territorries. He never deviated from this. That --was-- enough to set the slave holders off, however. Lincoln's name did not even appear on the ballot in South Carolina and several other southern states. Seven states passed secession ordinances or otherwise attempted to overthrow the federal government within their boundaries before Lincoln even took office. It's unrealistic to say Lincoln, given the conditions of his time, should have immediately said upon taking office, that he demanded an immediate emancipation of all slaves when seven states were attempting to form a separate nation.
Lincoln in this time frame didn't favor immediate emancipation in any case, unless it was coupled with repopulating blacks outside the country. That is the fact of the matter. On the other hand, as the war progressed Lincoln said:
"When you give the Negro these rights," he said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood."
And later:
"it is also unsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers."
4/11/65
Note the date. It was over this speech that Booth vowed to kill Lincoln, and three days later, he did.
So Lincoln's ideas grew and changed over time. Those that would attempt to besmirch Lincoln's memory typically want to focus on Lincoln's comments during the 1850's and exclude what he said as president because it doesn't suit them. The record shows that by the end of his life, Lincoln was coming to the conclusion that blacks deserved ALL the rights of citizenship.
Your position, as I like to say, is not well supported in the record. If you continue to spout the sort of complete nonsense some do, I will say more.
I will also point out that this famous letter to Greeley you butcher was written in just the same time frame that Lincoln decided to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.
Walt
You certainly are spinning furiously. I notice that in your post you've put what you've read between the lines right there, in between the lines. Another equally -- if not more valid -- reading, is that Jefferson is just defending freedom of speech. Notice Jefferson does not say, "If there are any states that wish to secede, let them go." He does essentially say if there are those who advocate dissolving the union, let them stand undisturbed do not use force against them. Jefferson is speaking about tolerating errors of opinion. It is a plea for free speech in the spirit of Voltaire. He is not addressing what the government would do if a state actually tried to leave the union.
It would be interesting to find out how his contemporaries understood the speech. It would be strange if in this generally conciliatory speech Jefferson were essentially to say, "if you don't like it -- leave!" Even if there's a proviso that one can always return, it's not the of thing political leaders generally tell members of the defeated party. It's far more likely that he was assuring the nation as a whole that he would not violate the liberties, even of those who were most mistaken in their views.
Then again, using your method, one could argue that Jefferson was talking about those who want to get rid of the Montreal Expos.
Where did you get the figure of 4.5 million slaves in the north?
The emancipation Proclamation is a WORTHLESS document, it did NOT free one slave in the North, which is where he had power to do that, and there were over 4,500,000 slaves held there. It only released the 3,000,000 held in the south, of which he had no legal authority.
Well, that's not correct either.
Lincoln had no power to affect slavery in the loyal areas of the country. Slavery was a state institution and was clearly protected in the Constitution.
What he DID have the power to do was take a hand in the insurgent areas of the country as commander in chief of the armed forces in time of war. You see, Lincoln read the Constitution more closely than the slave holders did. Oops. If you read the EP, you'll see that it excludes Tennessee entirely and also large parts of Louisiana. That is because federal power was in effect there. It was only in the insurgent areas where Lincolnn could act. And he did.
He wrote a famous letter, which presumabley has escaped your notice. It really sounds as if Lincoln were writing to -you-.
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. Yet I have neither adopted nor proposed any measure, which is not consistant even with your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater expense, to save the Union exclusively by other means. You dislike the emancipatio proclamation; and perhaps, would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional--I think differently.
I think the Constitution invests the commander in chief with the law of war, in time of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves are property. Is there--has there ever been--any question that by the law of war, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? And is it not needed whenever taking it helps us, or hurts the enemy?
....but the proclamation, as law, either is valid, or it is not valid. If it is not valid, it needs no retraction. If it is valid, it can not be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life....The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us, since the issue of the proclamation as before. I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us some of most important successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use of colored troops, constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers....I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, that emancipation, and arming the blacks, are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted, as such, in good faith. You say you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willing to fight for you; but no matter. Fight you then, exclusively to save the Union... negroes, like other people act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if we will do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they must be prompted by the strongest motive--even the promise of freedom. And the promise, being made, must be kept....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
8/24/63
Lincoln outsmarted the salve holders, but then, they were none too bright.
Walt
Lincoln obviously DID have power there. Union armies crushed out the rebellion and restored the national authority in all the states.
But you probably mean he had no power under the --Constitution-.
But that is wrong too.
Walt
That way, you'll have someplace to go and show your prodigy your heritage. And then, in the future, THEY can post to F.R. about the evil ways of the Blue-bellies and A. Lincoln.
We can't. You'll never sway them. It's off to the SCV meetings for them to bask in their own brilliance and that of their fellows and that aura of losing that attaches itself to everything confederate.
But they DO serve the purpose of allowng us to illumine these issues for the lurkers. The more they bump these threads to the top, the better it is.
Walt
Yeah, I took the Chickamauga car tour a few years ago (I grew up about five miles from the park, but had never taken the tour) and at the very first stop, the park ranger told us that Bedford Forrest marshalled his troops, "right over there". Right over there being a K-mart parking lot now.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.